Meanwhile Lou Whitaker, with the second highest career bWAR of eligible non-steroid players, even higher than St. Derek of the Bronx, sits and waits. Ridiculous.
Because it waters down the achievement for others and loses focus for visitors to the Hall.Why is it too big? Are they running out of space?
I go back and forth on the bigger/smaller hall of fame discussion, but I don't think Harold Baines will greatly alter anyone's visit to the Hall of Fame than Jim Rice does for non-Boston fans.Because it waters down the achievement for others and loses focus for visitors to the Hall.
Same reason that the Grammys are a joke.
At least Jim Rice has a whole bunch of shaded numbers while Baines ONCE led the league in slugging and it was a BIG 0.541. Plus Rice had was in the top 5 for MVP voting 6 times. Baines was once 9th in MVP voting.While I do think there may be a few players in the Hall today that probably were not worthy of induction, I don't think that list is very large. Nor is it a problem. Most fans would rather see some of their favorite players enshrined in the Hall than not. So having Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Kirby Puckett, and perhaps Jack Morris is not as big of a problem as, in my opinion, excluding Lou Whittaker and Edgar Martinez.
However, there does need to be some standards. The Veterans Committee was formed in an attempt to get players in that were overlooked by the voters at the time of their candidacy for whatever reason. Why yet another such committee was formed, and the composition of that committee, and the process they used for voting are all complete mysteries. It's a recipe for disaster, IMO, with Harold Baines the tip of the iceberg.
Hey, don't you look forward to the Veteran's Committee's backlash to the stats movement? Expect a lot more borderline players while they pwn the sabrz. I'm half expecting David Eckstein to make it in.Even worse than Jack Morris - probably the most unqualified player elected in my lifetime
The problem isn't individuals, it's in aggregate; it's a death of 1000 paper cuts. (Which is why I didn't push back against Baines in particular, but rather the broad idea that people should always vote for 10 on their ballots).I go back and forth on the bigger/smaller hall of fame discussion, but I don't think Harold Baines will greatly alter anyone's visit to the Hall of Fame than Jim Rice does for non-Boston fans.
Whitaker, Evans and Ted Simmons are always on my "why aren't they in there" listMeanwhile Lou Whitaker, with the second highest career bWAR of eligible non-steroid players, even higher than St. Derek of the Bronx, sits and waits. Ridiculous.
I think people should vote for 10 every year because I think it's idiotic that they get dumped so quickly from the ballot. If you want to be elite, that's fine but don't eliminate people after one year. Get rid of that rule and the stupid Veteran's Committee process and it's a different ballgame.The problem isn't individuals, it's in aggregate; it's a death of 1000 paper cuts. (Which is why I didn't push back against Baines in particular, but rather the broad idea that people should always vote for 10 on their ballots).
It's not the Hall of Best Era-adjusted Players, it's the Hall of Fame. George Mikan might not crack the NBA today, but he absolutely deserves to be in the basketball hall of fame over superior modern players.There are a number of people here that there are players in the Hall of Fame who really do not deserve to be, I feel that some forget that there were people who played more than one hundred years ago who were considered outstanding in their time, but as years have past, the number of people who have played has greatly increases and the baseline for excellence has climbed.
This is a simple experiment comparing batters by OPS+ with at least 3000 PA from the era of 1893-1910 and all-time from 1893-2018) ...all players to those elected to the Hall. Players from the early portion may actually have started their careers before the pitching distance changed to 60'6" in 1893. I'm not defending Baines's election nor railing against it (although I never remotely considered him and the Hall).
Amen.I'm sure its already been said in this thread, but other than the 11 guys who voted for him, no one who saw Baines play thought he was a Hall of Fame player.
If the HoF is going to let the Vet Committee hand out free lifetime honors to their buddies, perhaps some mimimum threshold must first be met, like a 66% BBWAA vote hurdle.
I think you are being a bit ridiculous here. Of course playing conditions were different but you have to judge players against their peers. In 1908 the White Sox hit three home runs as a team, and one of those was by a pitcher. The league average was 15. It's rather hard to compare 1908 player to 2018 players in that regard; however, their OF Patsy Dougherty had a career OPS+ of 117, which certainly puts him easily in the upper half of players from that era.It's not the Hall of Best Era-adjusted Players, it's the Hall of Fame. George Mikan might not crack the NBA today, but he absolutely deserves to be in the basketball hall of fame over superior modern players.
There are a lot of reasons beyond in-a-vacuum performance to put people in. Being dominant enough that you cause the pitching distance to get pushed back should count in your favor in terms of HOF credentials, even though it certainly should cause your statistics to be viewed with a negative eye to the different playing conditions.
We can sort WAR, OPS+, and ERA+ lists on our own.
And 2.3 of them came in one year! (1984)He has 1.8 wins above average player in his career.
Because it was funny when he got mad and kicked his hat.I have no idea why Lou Pinella came up only one vote short.
Do you mean a tracker for the BBWAA vote? Here’s one, but there are only 32 public ballots so far.Has anyone found the ongoing ballot for 2019 yet?
And here's the detailed version. I like rows 9-11 which show the percentages from last year and the drop off (or gain) from the pre-results and the public vs. private ballots. It gives you an idea of how much to discount the tracker vs. what the final result may be. The gain/loss section at the bottom is also a good way to see if players are gaining ground (Edgar) or losing ground (Manny).Do you mean a tracker for the BBWAA vote? Here’s one, but there are only 32 public ballots so far.
http://www.bbhoftracker.com/
Harold Reynolds (as a peer player) yesterday said he was, and he was very emphatic about it.I'm sure its already been said in this thread, but other than the 11 guys who voted for him, no one who saw Baines play thought he was a Hall of Fame player.
He's just excited that it's opened the door for all Harolds to get in.Harold Reynolds (as a peer player) yesterday said he was, and he was very emphatic about it.
Interesting that Baines is the first player to get in with the name of Harold that went by Harold. The other three Harolds in the Hall are Harold "Pee Wee" Reese, Harold "Hal" Newhouser and Harold "Pie" Traynor. I would have thought there'd be more, given the long history of the game. Maybe I (or BBREF) missed somebody.He's just excited that it's opened the door for all Harolds to get in.
*
No. I would rather see some deserving guys be left out than include a bunch of not quite worthy ones. To me, the “occasional Baines” has been more than occasional the last 10-12 years.I mean, they went to this whole "era committee" system because nobody was getting voted in unless they were dead. Is that really preferable?
Put differently, would you rather put up with the occasional Baines if it means that someone like Evans or Whitaker or Lofton or whoever your favorite is gets a legitimate chance down the line like Alan Trammell did?I guess if you're a Small Hall person it doesn't matter.
To say it again, I think the writers are now going to stop voting for worthy-but-not-slam-dunk guys like Walker or Rolen, thinking they'll get in via the committee backdoor, only those players won't have as friendly of a committee working in their favor. (And yes, I am aware that TLR managed both of those guys.)
Who? The VC has only inducted four living players since 2001, all in the last two years.No. I would rather see some deserving guys be left out than include a bunch of not quite worthy ones. To me, the “occasional Baines” has been more than occasional the last 10-12 years.
Is it possible to paste a summary/picture/something? The site is blocked at my work.They're up to 66 ballots on the public tracker now. Biggest net adds to ballot from previous:
McGriff +11
Walker +10
Mussina and Edgar +8
Vizquel +7
Manny the biggest loser at -4
Not that it means anything at this point but Mariano, Edgar, Halladay, Mussina and Schilling are above the cut line.
HI! I want people to know who I am because I am a dumbass looking for attention.The first public non-vote for Rivera is because ... Kimbrel sucked this postseason, Vinatieri missed two field goals in a Super Bowl once and Taylor Dakers made some easy saves in an AHL game.
https://www.telegram.com/news/20181222/bill-ballou-mariano-rivera-not-getting-this-writers-hall-of-fame-vote?
I’d rather Mariano become the first before Hopes and Dreams is eligible. I really don’t want to see the media gushing about Jeter being the first unanimous selection.Obviously Mariano should be in. But if someone doesn’t want him to be the first unanimous guy and doesn’t vote for him, I sort of get it.